John S.

You're welcome. The person you mention has abandoned all efforts/interest in the Cincinnati area and will apparently, remain in St. Louis. She's also closed down the FB discussions (she had a Cincinnati centered FB preservation group) and has requested that I not contact her anymore... which I will honor, of course. There are no bureaucratic shortcuts to rehabbing a place like the Elm street building. Properties like that one have been on the City's "radar screen" for years if not decades, and anyone coming in to rehab such a property (unless they already have a proven track record in the OTR) will have to do it one step at a time by the book to satisfy the City. That issue was the primary reason for this project's failure.

Regarding 1737 Elm: Considering that the aforementioned previous owner was an attorney (or at least claimed she was) perhaps best to not get into too many small details. Her side of the story was that promises were made and some claims against the structure had not been settled but these issues were not disclosed to her. But as stated, as these problems mounted and became cumulative, the new owner finally decided it was unworkable so she and her husband bailed. (allegedly, a hired masonry contractor had also began work without pulling a required permit and was stopped by the city) ) If she was an attorney, one would reasonably assume that she would have applied due dilligence and discovered all outstanding issues involving the property before taking on the project. In any event, following the latest abandonment, the structure went back on the City's nuisance properties list (which has around 5,000 properties at last count) but given it's prime location and nearby on-going renovations, I feel confident a new owner will be more successful this time around. A valuable lesson to be learned from this incident: always get ALL of the information available before taking on the rehab of a long neglected and abandoned property. The OTR still has numerous distressed properties in this category and bringing a deteriorated structure like this back is challenging even under the best of conditions. Since the aforementioned person had supposedly rehabbed numerous buildings similar to this one in St. Louis, why this one had to lead to such a negative outcome for all parties involved is puzzling. Obviously, careful planning is crucial for a successful outcome. That's about all I wish to say about the incident.

No matter how worthwhile such a project as this one is to the community, there's always the NIMBY (not in my back yard!) contingent. Bed & Breakfast Inns are the lowest impact kind of hospitality facility with most often having just a few guests at a time. But you watch, some old timer will get up and argue passionately that the whole darn thing should have been bulldozed and something new built there. There's still that subset of citizens who see no value in preserving anything older than what was built in the past 20 years. Largely, they subscribe to the now faded American ideal of planned obsolescence which dictates the minute something starts to look dated, its time to replace it with something new and "better" whether is it a car, a home, or in some cases, even a spouse. (just joking about the last one)

Since you raised a couple of additional issues, I hope you don't mind some added information. Shellac finishes can be cleaned up without complete stripping. The citrus based, water soluable, orange cleaner (orange blast being a popular brand) works as an effective cleaner with steel wool and has a mild stripping effect on shellac. (if spilled on a shellac coated surface and left to pool, the orange cleaner will strip the finish off in about 30 minutes) There's also a popular brand of "Wood Soap" named after someone named Murphy that works well to remove dark old shellac stains without taking off all of the original finish. Keep in mind that if you try to coat over the old shellac with new (orange) shellac, most likely it will somewhat or will completely dissolve the old finish. Denatured alcohol also acts as a shellac solvent and unlike cured-out lacquers or urethanes, old shellac easily dissolves. (rubbing alcohol and the drinking variety also dissolve shellac) Best to get as clean a surface as possible (while retaining the old finish) before applying any new shellac finishes. I was able to clean up our c. 1890 oak parlor overmantel using the aforementioned techniques while retaining the original finish and stain color. (golden oak-an orangey-amber color) One more thing: shellac, once it is thoroughly dry, can be top coated (over) with polyurethane and it shouldn't affect the old finish. However, best to experiment on a spot before doing a large area. (poly)urethane is only useful for protecting areas with HEAVY wear (floors, stair treads, hand railings, bathroom walls etc.) Last, if you decide to clean your stellar fretwork panel use extreme caution as the old wood (most likely oak, ash, walnut, or maple) is very brittle and will almost break off if you do anything more than take a look at it. It might be best to carefully take the fretwork spandrel down to a soft padded workbench for cleaning and touch up-it requires a brain surgeon's delicate approach to it. (old toothbrushes come in handy for cleaning out nooks and crannies) We too had old gas fireplace inserts in our original coal burning fireplaces. Given their age and condition, (very rusted) they were replaced. Our one probable wood burning fireplace (in the parlor) also had a later installed gas connection so we used an early (vented) 1900's heater. In any case, almost every old chimney/flue will need to be relined to be safe for re-use. The creosote from burning wood is extremely corrosive and will eat away old lime mortar that was used in the 1800's and early 1900's. Best to pay for having a fireplace relined with proper specialty cement by a pro and installing modern stainless steel flues/vents. Of course, a gas insert might not need such extensive retrofitting but since there could be a possibility of carbon monoxide leakage you might have to get a pro to retrofit even for merely a gas insert vent. Best to get a pro to check those things out and make sure it is in compliance with local modern codes. Insurance companies would also insist on proper, up-to-code venting too. No one said saving an old house was cheap. (but living in a unique old house is priceless)

Holy Cow, JRC! I noticed you have FOURTEEN pages of comments from readers on the other forum. Guess you've realized by now you hit a "home run" on buying this fine vintage house. You've got a couple of decent "bonus" antique furniture pieces too like the c. 1870 walnut wishbone mirrored dresser. 95% or more of old house woodwork finishes are the standard common orange shellac. The original solvent in shellac is denatured alcohol but using it in a closed environment will give you a mighty headache. If I were going to strip the wood, I'd use one of the organic strippers like soy based or like 3M's "Safest Stripper" which is citrus based. They are non-flammable but cost more than solvent strippers. Best to do small areas like 2 ft. by 2 ft. at a time. Clean up is with warm water however using 0000 steel wool or a scotchbrite type pad and some old towels. The stripped wood should be allowed to fully dry out for several days before lightly sanding (with the direction of the wood grain with 180 or 220 grit paper, open coat) Then you can stain if needed or simply apply brushed poly in satin sheen. (lightly scuffing between dried coats) Polyurethane has to be applied in thin coats as heavier coats will always sag and drip. Talk to your local pro finishing supply people for the best products to use. There are wood bleaches too but I think the "patina" and occasional slight blotches that come from age are acceptable-you probably don't want your 110 year old woodwork to look brand new. As for the missing fireplace cover, here's a true story: We had one of those nice embossed copper/metal covers over our parlor fireplace when we bought our place over 2 decades ago. When I took it off I was horrified to find it had asbestos backing and the asbestos was fraying badly. I wetted it down with a spray bottle while wearing a mask. Double bagged it in heavy contractor bags and disposed of it properly. I customed made a new cover from plywood with printed fabric and foam backing as we do not use the fireplace for fires. We had two young kids at the time and they didn't need exposure to asbestos. Your's may not have had such a fireproof backing. I've seen such old covers occasionally for sale at salvage sites. (measurements needed) Last, as to paint schemes, I like your blue & Colonial white combination the best but the green, straw-yellow, and Colonial white combo is nice too. Painting the sashes a darker color like the dark red is (black, dark green, dark gray are also) period correct as well. Awesome house, JRC. I noticed one of your garage photos showed a towered Queen Anne style house a street over-looks like you're in a nice historic neighborhood. Lot's of work ahead but you've got some fantastic "bones" to work with. The main thing is to be patient and steady, old houses take a lot of time to restore and it's best to prioritize and work on small projects rather than have five going at the same time (as I've foolishly done in the past) One thing's for sure-you won't need any new hobbies for the next few years...

Did anyone catch the Steubenville segment about America's New Boomtowns on ABC TV's Evening News earlier this week? (Oct. 17 or 18th, 2011) It suggested that Steubenville and nearby cities on both sides of the Ohio are poised to become new boomtowns due the natural gas shale drilling activity going on in the region. Of course, the biggest winners are the gas companies themselves and most are from out of State. After them, the landowners who negotiate drilling leases (usually for a 3 year period) and receive a bonus check. Here in Ft. Worth, TX which is in the middle of the Barnett Shale gas drilling activity, lease bonus checks have reached up to $33,500 per acre but that was at the peak of nat. gas prices ($14+ per 1k cubic feet) in the summer of 2008. New leases are now in the $5k an acre range (with nat. gas at around $4 per 1k cubic feet) with between 24-26% royalty interest per property owner in a pool of properties. (which is often a 40 acre leased drilling site) But for the average homeowner with an acre or less of leased land, the royalties per acre would likely be in the low thousands per year or probably less with declining amounts every year afterward-hardly a windfall or meeting the definition of a Boom. But the ABC article said the increased drilling activity would lead to new local jobs. While technically that is true. drilling crews only stay in a given area for a few years at most. Once the gas is tapped and piped into the system the number of maintenance jobs associated with the gas industry at that point is very small. In conclusion, I'd like to see the long struggling towns of Eastern Ohio (East Liverpool, Marietta, Steubenville) return to prosperity but unlike the Steel industry, Glass, or Ceramics production which lasted for generations, this natural gas energy "Boom" is likely to come and go within a decade if not for a much shorter duration. Still, any infusion of investment into this region should help but this "Boom" will only have a lasting beneficial effect on large lease holders with mineral rights. Should natural gas prices steeply climb for some reason (unlikely) then everything I just wrote should be ignored but supplies are coming online right now from the Barnett Shale in Texas and Oklahoma and the Marcellus Shale in Western PA and Southwestern NY so with a supply abundance, nat. gas prices should be fairly stable for a long time. I'd be curious to see in a couple of years if any of the ABC news predictions for the predicted Boom in Steubenville came true or not.

If you're in Bellefonte or State College, worth a nearby side trip is tiny Millheim, a well preserved historic town. The Millheim hotel has good meals and a nice bar in the back. The old tin ceilings and period political memorabilia create a wonderful aura of bygone times. We stayed at the Millheim hotel (upstairs) but the amenities were somewhat spartan. Wonderful view from the upstairs veranda however.

Great photos, Ink! Steubenville, Marietta, East Liverpool are all in a part of the State that had a hard-scrabble economy decades before the present recession arrived. I'm not surprised to see more demolition losses. I visited that part of the State over a decade ago and it seemed the process of "downsizing" or, euphemistically,"right sizing" the various communities along the Ohio River was well underway back then. The economically depressed areas on both sides of the River need a major economic boost of some kind before any growth or slowing down of old home and building demolitions can be expected. For those who like to see the gritty side of old industrial towns, this is THE area to visit. Despite chronic economic weakness, the area still has lots of natural beauty and the locals are generally friendly; sometimes, they'll share some interesting and colorful stories. (but understandably, prefer not to talk much about the local economy)

If we had sound here you'd hear me clapping and cheering! This is SO encouraging and a rare good end to what is often a total loss. Hat's off to the restorer(s). They deserve an award for bringing this one back.

"This solution would not only reduce the sewer overflow, but could provide an attractive community amenity in South Fairmount that could spark urban renewal" While I think the proposed water treatment solutions are based on sound engineering and science, the "could spark urban renewal" part is pure speculation. If it were my own money being used for the project, (which as a taxpayer it would be) I would take care of the water treatment and handling issues at the lowest possible cost necessary for EPA compliance and then let the "urban renewal" aspects be borne by private investors, not by public taxpayers. Why "piggyback" an urban renewal added component costing millions onto a straight-forward water treatment project? Public funds are becoming scarce and they will only become more scarce in the years to come especially if Congress finally clamps down on major spending and adopts a budget of austerity. (as many European countries are doing now) A worst case scenario would be a long field of vacant lots where this part of the neighborhood used to stand now with an expensive glorified drainage ditch running through it. No tax revenues from vacant lots and no new investment...and that is a far more likely scenario than massive urban renewal investment brought on by bulldozing the historic neighborhood, IMO.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't the root of this issue the problem of separating storm water run off from sewage drainage? I believe one reason this project was fast tracked was because the EPA had discovered instances where the Lick Run sewage and storm runoff was so immense in volume that the sewage treatment plant where it all ended up going to was taxed beyond its capacity and thus was forced to release some of this excess untreated water into local waterways thus causing pollution. The argument being that if the sewage drain off (which is managable as of now for the current treatment plant) were separated from the storm run off, then there would be no need to build a larger (very costly) sewage plant to handle the combined volume and become EPA compliant. Assuming this is the case, is all of the demolition work and extra excavation for a new sewage system really the least expensive project path for taxpayers and the CITY/MSD? Do we really need "daylighting" or is this merely some planner's personally clever idea designed to meet the EPA requirements while getting rid of what this planner consider's blight? Before we get into a blight definition argument, one could argue that antiques are roughly parallel to old houses and buildings-in the case of antiques, what others often throw away in the trash or sell for a few dollars at a yard sale end sometimes end up being quite valuable to others. But houses and buildings are different in that for them to have value, they must be used and have purpose. Most people want a home or business place in good repair so if these endangered homes do not get demolished then someone is obligated to repair and restore them assuming these people can be found. The restoration of old houses and buildings is still a fairly novel concept in a City that has been tearing down its old neglected architecture for literally generations. In the 1988 Cincinnati Centennial book, one of the big advertizers was a demolition firm, even back as far as Daniel J. Kinney's City Guide in 1893 there were large advertisments for "House Wreckers". Therefore, tearing down the old for new is part of the ingrained local mindset. A lot more education is needed to show why old buildings and homes have value, not just nostalgic or sentimental, but actual monetary redevelopment value. If you disagree, please visit some of the local architectural salvage outlets or looks for architectural salvage pieces on e-Bay. In architecture just as antiques, one person's junk is another person's treasure. I think some of the Lick Run homes and buildings are architectural treasures and should be kept and preserved but I'm sure there are others who consider them "blight" and over-due for a wrecking ball. At least consider the economic alternatives before sending out the bulldozers. The Walll Street Journal and New York Times both had recent articles praising the OTR for its unique charm. If the blight busters had been given their way, the OTR would have disappeared years ago and lots of investment would have been lost. Worth considering regardless of which side you're on.

Interesting low-density suburban type construction appearing in a formerly dense urban area-is this the new Midwestern re-development paradigm? If so, it appears to be based on the assumption that urban land is now cheap enough for this kind of sprawling layout and most "right-sized" Midwestern cities will no longer have a need for dense redevelopment as they once had during their horse & buggy-streetcars days. So now, automobile-centric suburbia arrives downtown and the old dense urban development model becomes obsolete? Not sure personally that such spacious suburban type development is necessarily bad in decaying urban areas but when entire historic neighborhoods are sacrificed for it, it surely is. (the old failed 1960's Urban Renewal model redux) This kind of suburban style redevelopment works and looks best when its done in former industrial areas, not in former historic neighborhoods, IMO.

Jeffery, I couldn't help but notice the similarities between this project and the pending MSD Lick-Run project in the South Fairmount area of Cincinnati. There the local bureaucrats are proposing the demolition of over 50 historic structures so they can "daylight" a buried stormwater run-off and sewer drain to comply with an EPA order. Supporters of the project (the mayor and neighborhood council members) propose leveling the historic homes and buildings to create a large green urban space with (as yet undecided) additional new development-so it seems like there's plenty of short-sighted planning to go around regionally. Local preservationists are appalled that saving any of the historic structures isn't even being considered in the plans. (despite some threatened homes and buildings being included in national register eligible surveys) The potential pocket-lining for those with a stake in the publicly funded project (demo contractors, developers) is just as bothersome as is speculated in Dayton's example. Of course, Cincinnati does have the shadowy legacy of "Boss" George Cox who was an icon of corrupt cronyism and back room deals a century ago. His spirit is probably smiling these days.

It is my understanding that those 6 properties on University will be reserved for future redevelopment, perhaps a "phase 2". The question is, can anything be learned about the Euclid Avenue losses that could be used effectively to prevent additonal losses both in Corryville and other historic neighborhoods? Developers are emboldened now to the point where they believe where ever they point their stick for a potential project becomes as good as a done deal regardless of what stands in the way. The fact that the county and city are now diverting tax dollars, earmarked for Schools and to assist the disabled, to use instead for acquiring blighted properties to market to developers, should give everyone an idea of where local authorities stand on the development issue. Cincinnati is gambling on its future by seeking developers at any cost to remake it into a new (but better?) city. However, not all developers are altruistic or visionary and want to build the ultimate 21st century city on the ruins of the old. (in fact, very few are) Some redevelopment is always needed but there's "smart" redevelopment and then the old fashioned and long discredited "urban renewal" model that some in the city bureacracy apparently think will work in Cincinnati when it has never worked anywhere else. Once again, the City's focus is on marketing and using the "new" Cincinnati to attract residents while ignoring the unparalleled historic architecture-the City's greatest underappreciated and untapped asset. Cincinnati will never be able to compete with no state and no local income tax cities and their modern boomtowns. After carefully studying the reality that is Cincinnati for several years, I believe locals will eventually wake up to what is going on before everything that defines the city from the past has been lost-but that may take several more years and thousands more demolished historic homes and buildings.

JRC, Just wanted to quickly add that in looking at the photos you posted they were dark on my monitor. However, I was able to lighten them enough to see more details-incredible! The fretwork spandrel and colonnade are of quarter-sawn oak (often called "Tiger Oak" due to the distinctive stripes in the wood) as is the very fine mantel. I'm also blown away by the built in sideboard with the leaded glass doors. Although the house may look faded and tired now it certainly was of mansion quality when new. You have some wonderful original features to work with for which most old house lovers would turn green with envy to see one so well preserved and intact. Quarter-sawn oak was not cheap around 1900 so having these high-end details is a big plus. Do you know anything about the original owner(s)? Most likely, they were prosperous merchants or professionals of their time. Sad to see the neighboring houses looking so faded-hopefully you can help the area to improve.

JRC, Of course, some folks love a 1950's bathroom and/or kitchen. But you have to keep in mind that when these areas in your house were "upgraded" the look they were seeking was totally modern for the time, not in keeping with the late Victorian period of the house. Today, a more sensitive approach would be to re-do the bathroom using period (early 1900's) fixtures and patterned small hexagonal tiles or even marble for the floors. I can connect you with a lot of resources for period details if you want to go that route. As for the kitchen, a sane compromise is to install cabinets that reflect the period of the house (using reproduction or salvage hardware) rather than the 1950's (when an attempt was made to modernize) Some purists go crazy and will buy a costly reproduction "cast iron" range and refrigerator (from Elmira Stove Works) or even a refurbished 120 year old original stove. Others will camouflage new appliances with wood fronts to blend them in with the old. A true c. 1900 kitchen would turn off all but museum curators as they tended to be Spartan in the extreme. Only servants, cooks, and the homeowners ever ventured into the old kitchens. Of course, now kitchens are sometimes the most "public" room in the house so bringing in modern appliances and conveniences are almost mandatory. Since it seems like the budget is a little tight, fresh paint does wonders and a good scrubbing and cleaning will bring back some sparkle to old linoleum floors and metal cabinets. Epoxy appliance paints can freshen up metal cabinet work as well. Do you know what a "Hoosier" cabinet is? It was the forerunner of the modern kitchen and included a porcelain work table, storage for cookware, often a built in flour sifter and other neat features. From the late 1800's until the modern kitchen with built-ins emerged in the 1930's Hoosier cabinets were the work-centers in almost every American kitchen. The Hoosier name came not only from one of the better known brands but from the fact that Indiana had dozens of factories making them during the period of popularity. Some even have etched glass or stained glass doors and they can be found in antique outlets and better flea markets. Not cheap, but an authentic touch to consider. So long as the porcelain work surface is sound, any loose joints or age defects can usually be fixed easily and cheaply. As for the garage roof, better to take care of it sooner rather than later. Next winter's snowfall might cause serious damage and best not to bring attention to code enforcement so that they condemn the garage. I'd give it some priority. And yes, it's a good D-I-Y project-lots of home remodeling books illustrate proper roof work. PM me and I can recommend a title if you need one. The sticking point will be the condition of the joists-if a lot of them are rotted then the whole roof will have to come off and be reframed. I didn't see that in the photo, though. It's a messy project, but not complicated. Getting a couple of buddies to help with decking and laying down the felt would speed it up enough to maybe get it done in a weekend. Free beer and pizza are optional. Last, plaster repair. I use a professional product called "Plaster Weld" made by Larsen products. It is a water based "glue" that helps bond new repair plaster to the old. However, if delamination of the old plaster is due to water-moisture migration through the wall, then the leak source will have to be repaired and stopped before any permanent repair can be made. The "hard" plaster from the early 1900's often had a small amount of Portland Cement added for strength. The aforementioned Old House Journal has had many plaster repair articles-PM me for specific issues or further information. I usually dig a wide but shallow channel (wide enough for fiberglass mesh tape but not deep enough to go below the finish plaster layer) then brush on some Plaster Weld followed by the mesh tape and a repair plaster that is "proud" of the surrounding surface. Upon drying, I sand down flush with the original surface and prime. Deep cracks take more time and a build up of several layers of repair plaster but are basically the same principle. When areas of plaster are damaged past the point of repair you can either cut out the old damaged plaster area carefully and put in some thin drywall and skim coat over it to bring it out flush, or, if you are really determined, can use a metal mesh ("expanded metal lath") over the removed damaged area and then re-create a proper 3 coat plaster job-(scratch coat, brown coat, and finish or "neat" plaster coat) It's far easier to use drywall (use the "blueboard" or green board made for high moisture areas in plaster wall repairs) in my opinion usless you're working on a museum house. Like most old house repairs, plaster repairs are not super high tech but definitely require some patience. Please feel free to follow up or PM me for more specific information. I think your prioritizing a full house clean up followed by repairs to the most pressing problems is the best approach. While cosmetic improvements are the most fun, the structural issues and dealing with leaks are by far the most important. If the main house roof has leaks or there are foundation problems by all means deal with them first. One thing's for sure, you'll never have to look for a project to work on for a few years or more... make it fun while you are doing it and thanks for saving a piece of history.

Congratulations! I know your quest to find the ideal home to restore has spanned several years, so this is a carefully thought out decision. The "bones" of your late Queen Anne style house are outstanding-not only is the original millwork and trim in place but most have never been painted. That means you won't have to spend hundreds of hours stripping old paint off the woodwork and picking paint particles out of the woodgrain. You''ll find the darkened finish is shellac and should clean up easily with denatured alcohol or similar solvents. (even rubbing alcohol will strip it) But, of course, good ventilation is a must. One can also use "safe" strippers such as citrus or soy based. Best would be to gently clean the woodwork without stripping out the stain and then covering with polyurethane finish for durability. Poly goes over old surfaces well but should be applied sparinging with thin coats and light sanding between coats. As for the bathrooms and kitchen-upgrades they're are a must but you have the choice between looking totally modern or capturing the flavor of the period when the house was built. (which no one was doing back in the 1950's and 60's but is popular today) Since your home is so incredibly intact and original, your best return on investment would be to keep the house to period and restore rather than replace everything with new. Two special "gifts" your house is giving you are the super-rare fretwork spandrel with colonnade and the beautiful mantel and original tiles. (probably made by one of the local art tile companies in Ohio which shipped them all over the U.S.) The fact that your staircase still has the newel post finials is a further sign of originality-so many are missing from houses that did time as rentals. Add the pocket doors (save any that are off the tracks they can be repaired and made functional again) and the other details like leaded glass windows and you have a real period treasure. Don't be in a hurry to gut everything to the studs; plaster walls can be easily repaired and have better sound deadening properties than drywall. Best to live with the house for about a year and let it guide you in the rehab process-a slow, deliberate approach is far better than a rush to completion project that will always look like it was done in haste. The workmanship that went into building the house originally was slow and deliberate with meticulous attention to detail. The ideal rehab will reflect and respect that careful approach which the original builders used. You might want to seek out issues of the Old House Journal (not This Old House) magazine as well as Victorian Homes magazine-the former has scores of D-I-Y advice while the latter shows how to keep the interior looking to period. As for the "junk" sort through it carefully just to make sure there aren't any gems like a 1930's Superman comic book worth a million or two. Lots of old 1950's stuff is collectable and quite valuable. Don't throw anything away that might be original to the house-even if you don't put it back a future owner will thank you for saving it. Surely you weren't serious about taking down the garage? Just remove the roofing, repair or replace the joists as needed, deck with 5/8 plywood, lay down 30 lb. felt, and top with decent 3-tab asphalt shingles. Timberlines from GAF have a wood-shingle look or you could even use the scalloped end "Carriage House Shangle" (their spelling) by Certainteed for a true Victorian look. The balustrade in your garage is the original front porch balustrade and looks to be in restorable condition. You can either replace missing baluster spindles from salvage sources or have them custom turned. (not as expensive as you might think) I'm pretty sure the window on the side nearest to the front porch (which appears to be covered with plywood) once had a nice stained or beveled leaded glass window-maybe the previous owner still has it or someone has a photo of it. One can now buy nice reproduction stained glass windows from Asia for less than $200 which would put the sparkle back in the room without breaking the bank. That room with the missing window is most likely in the former Parlor which was usually the "showiest" room in the house. Just curious, do you perhaps have inlaid patterned floors in any rooms? (most often featuring a border with a darker wood for accent) In any event, congratulations on such a wonderful intact find and should I be able to help you with restoration information, please feel welcomed to ask. I've been engaged professionally in historic restoration work since the 1980's. How fortunate you are to own such a rare find.

Neil, Most likely there is a T.I.F. District benefit provided to developers for new development in this area. I wouldn't be at the least surprised to learn some federal EPA "brownfields" clean up money would be forthcoming as well for asbestos abatement-doubtful any of these hazards are going to cost the developer a penny more to build here than building in another location. As for costs vs. benefits analysis, you're kidding, right? The developers have their spreadsheets and I seriously doubt there's any such analysis-their basic business model is simple but profitable and is based on past success. Corryville exists as a developer's oyster with its pearls waiting to be plucked-any effective oposition to additional housing development is minimal and comes mostly from outsiders. The transient students who are renters really don't have a voice and most are more concerned about finding affordable housing near campus than involving themselves in controversies about historic preservation in the neighborhood. My only concern beyond the apparently unstoppable re-development is one about increased crime because concentrating large number of students in a dense area increases opportunities for criminals to do their work. And heaven forbid, if the entire neighborhood becomes transformed into student housing and supporting businesses, then what happens if there is ever a sharp decrease in student housing demand? Student housing is already oriented towards a lower income level. Don't think for a second if the student population drops with reduced housing demand that the apartment management firms will allow many units to sit vacant for a long time. Yep, it's then Section 8 time and Corryville's reputation will take on a whole new dimension. But maybe the student housing demand will remain robust for decades in Corryville-let's hope so for the many students' sake and safety.

I don't know why Uptown's business model is so one dimensional. That's an easy one to answer-because the performance bar set for them is very low-basically, if no demands are placed on the kind and quality of what is proposed to be built, then anything meeting the minimum building code requirements is acceptable. Since profits drive business decisions, the quickest and cheapest path to construction is the easy choice-no demands for adaptive re-use or conversions of existing buildings have been voiced so just continue to knock down the old and build new. The (re)developers probably do not live anywhere near Corryville themselves so if it becomes nothing but block after block of early 21st century generic student housing, it's not their problem-besides, those leaders in the decision making process for Corryville like what they are doing, so why do anything different or more challenging? From a historic preservation perspective, Corryville is "toast" and anything historic being maintained there will fit into the miracle category. Unless you have a personal financial stake in the neighborhood, all the good intentions in the world are all for naught-you are not a direct stakeholder and investor. Hindsight might prove the development changes to be unwise in retrospect but it will never bring back any of the demolished historic structures. To imagine the architecturally generic student housing might someday be considered "historic" in its own right and worth saving would cause even the developers to have a good laugh. This planned-obsolescence-built student housing will all be gone itself in 30-40 years (unless extensively renovated) and in turn replaced by something else. They do not build ordinary buildings and houses to last a century today as they did in the 1800's. Too costly and labor intensive.

Uptown Properties, a major redevelopment and rental/leasing firm, recently was in the preservation spotlight for their demolition of historic homes on Euclid Avenue in Corryville. Since Uptown appears to have the total support of the Corryville Community council, whatever they want to purchase and then demolish for constructing more apartments will apparently be rubber-stamped and considered a done deal. Corryville apparently does not want to be known for historic architecture, but as a large apartment community serving the housing needs of nearby UC students. It also appears the Community Council includes developers as members so not surprisingly redevelopment projects receive a sympathic reception. While I think Corryville did have some outstanding historic architecture, if everyone in the decision-making process is on-board with it being replaced with apartments, then my opinion is worth nothing.

These are very good and valid points. As others have noted, doing nothing is this area will not change anything except for more emergency demolitions as some of these elderly structures are reaching a "tipping" point due to deterioration. While I agree that funds from city, state, and federal sources would be extremely beneficial, we have now entered a period of austerity and very tight governmental budgets. At a time when public employees, teachers, and even first responders are being given pink slips, it's unrealistic to expect a windfall of public funds to come save these or any other historic Cincinnati treasures. So where could funds to rehabilitate these buildings come from? The obvious answer is from the private sector. No, there are no fabulously wealthy patrons of architecture who would selflessly dedicate a million dollars or two to save these buildings, but by considering the OTR as a template, individual buildings could be marketed to the same developers who are transforming them in the OTR. If a TIF district or some other form of tax incentives could be put in place to "sweeten" the deal, maybe at least one structure could become the test model to see if this kind of rehabilitation would work in Walnut Hills. I know of at least one apartment building on Gilbert that was successfully rehabbed in recent years although I think HUD funding went into that project. Developers are only seeking a decent return on their investment-if that return comes from rehabilitation of a historic building or from building a new one, it matters little. For now, at least, new construction has been chosen as the path to revitalization and if successful, there's no reason to think it will end with these 14 buildings being torn down. At some point, the presence of new overtakes the old streetscape and the old disappears completely. Take a look at the downtown riverfront photos from the 1930's and try to find any of the old buildings there today. My contention is transforming the neighborhood in this manner wastes some potentially valuable historic buildings that would be more valuable in the long run than anything new to be built there. The choice to build new in place of rehabilitating the old is NOT reversible as the act of building new always requires destruction of the old. Walnut Hills in the late 19th century was one of Cincinnati's nicest neighborhoods and full of prosperous merchants and their families. The architecture there still reflects that. It would be a shame to lose that historic identity so every new construction project should be evaluated not just on the basis of profitability for the developer, builder, and marketers, but how it will benefit the neighborhood itself (over the long term) and the nice folks who call Walnut Hills home.

"They aren't just aiming the project for Casino workers, they want a mixed income community that includes empty nester boomers, young professionals and affordable apartment units. Finally, they are trying the hardest they can to get stabilization funds, but they don't have the resources that 3CDC does to be able to save everything." Let's look at that statement and analyze some of the conclusions to be reached. First, local media coverage emphasized that the housing market demographic to be targeted was Casino workers. Ok, so now it is being expanded to include "empty nester boomers" (read: the 55+ set) young professionals (I assume "young" in this case means post-university/college graduates but probably not families with children) and "affordable apartments". The term "affordable" is relative. Affordable for someone receiving Fed. housing assistance may be a couple of hundred dollars a month; for a millionaire, it may be in the thousands per month. But I think the idea here is to target the lower plus to mid-range income segments. Nothing wrong with that-but again, when you mention "exciting" housing choices to younger Cincinnatians, Walnut Hills would likely come in near the bottom. As for the "boomer" post 55 set, most older people put a premium on relative safety-yes, a fortress-like apartment building might afford a sense of security, but there's little to no interaction with the neighborhood in such surroundings. Boring. Given the neighborhood surroundings, it will be challenging for the developers and marketers to come up with something so unique it will appeal by itself to those they claim as their future tenants. Maybe they could bulldoze all of Walnut Hills and build a new neighborhood from scratch, but if they cannot even find stabilization funds, then how can funds be found for something massive like that? Giving up on the historic buildings due to a lack of stabilization funds is taking the easy way out. Perhaps a list of all older neglected structures in Cincinnati could be created and each and every building demolished-problem solved, right? Rehabilitation of older structures should not be viewed as a lesser alternative choice to new construction. It's true that 3CDC created conditions that made it attractive to rehabilitate structures in the OTR, but the renaissance of the OTR is driven now by new investment from savvy developers who see there's a great local market for nicely rehabbed 19th century buildings. These are for folks of all ages who want to live in a place with character and a sense of history. Replacing the McMillan streetscape with bland modern apartment buildings does not serve the kind of people who would choose to live in the OTR. Those who seek new apartments also want safe apartments and the perception is that this area is not very safe. The OTR still has a safety image problem as well but those people who want to live in a place with history and character are willing to accept that. (with the premise that as the OTR gentrifies, it will become safer) These new vs. old apartment dwellers are different demographic groups with different outlooks. They are very similar to Suburbanites who wouldn't live in anything over 20 years old and certainly not in the inner city vs. urbanists who consciously choose to live in a 125 year old dwelling located in the inner city. (and who shun Suburban sprawl and all it stands for) To me, what is being offered are new inner-city apartments being targeted to suburbanites. As has been witnessed in many older areas throughout the City, new apartments quickly become dated, and over a few decades can become virulent and ugly. Does Walnut Hills want to assume this long-term risk? But wait, that's the whole philosophy behind modern construction, build it to last 30-40 years, then tear it all down and build again. As previously stated, this part of Walnut Hills is more intact with its historic architecture than many others; once these 19th century buildings are gone no amount of hindsight will ever bring them back. They should be looked upon as a precious, finite asset that cannot be replicated today-by choosing the new, this will determine the future of the neighborhood. I suspect it will have a neutral to slightly negative impact on the neighborhood. My gut feeling is that this is short-sighted and a mistake. The OTR and even the West End may become some of the priciest real estate in Cincinnati in 20 years and will rocket up in value while Walnut Hills remains, well, Walnut Hills-there are plenty of examples to prove this likelyhood. But as I said, modern culture lives in the here and now and puts off any thoughts about the future especially when it might involve looking back and respecting the past.

Here are five "concept" scenarios of the area post-project: http://www.projectgroundwork.org/lickrun/watershed/concepts.htm none of them include preservation or rehabilitation of the dozens of historic buildings and homes in the project's pathway. Worth noting is that the old Lick Run creek which ran through the area and caused frequent flooding was later channelled through a 19 ft. in diameter pipe somehow routed underground without disturbing the buildings. The problem requiring the new project is that sewer water is/was mixed in with storm water drainage-billions of gallons of storm water runoff that has to be processed as sewer water as required by the EPA. The new water quality improvement project separates these two water sources and puts the storm drain runoff into a new creek channel that remains to be built. Some new development is expected along the channel. However, South Fairmount neighborhood leaders actually wanted the dozens of old buildings and homes gone as the area has the highest Sec. 8 renter percentages in the city. This is an example of "demographic control" done with a bulldozer blade... Not the best way to "gentrify" an area, in my opinion.

Dlueg, Excellent points in your post. However, this stretch of McMillan is one of the more intact 19th century commercial areas outside of the OTR and should not be targeted for an "urban renewal" type redevelopment. To do so erases the rich history and built legacy of the neighborhood, to be replaced by what? I'm in total agreement that modern in-fill development in a historic streetscape can be gawd-awful in mimicking the originals; to successfully blend new construction to be visually compatible with the old takes considerable design talent. Better to stick to a modern design but not put a Frank Gehry-type organic modernist structure right next to an 1870's classic Italianate. (but some people like this kind of jarring architectural juxtaposition and esthetic dissonance) In the specific case of McMillan, the redevelopment is based and motivated by speculation, i.e., that if housing is built and specifically targeted to the as yet incompleted Casino's employees, they will take up residence there. Are the folks marketing this project going to offer Casino employees subsidized rent for a year? A big screen TV with free cable? Suppose the housing looks bland or so generic design-wise that it looks like any other kind of mid to low income apartment housing built from Miami FL to Seattle, WA? Was it worth it then to get rid of the 19th century originals and replace them with more "Mac-partments"? Sure, the 19th century originals need work-if, by some miracle, anything being built today is still standing in 2125, what condition do you think it will be in? Modern construction is designed with built-in obsolescence in mind-that is a total departure from the 19th century building philosophy that buildings should last for generations. (proven by these 125 year old buildings still standing, despite minimal maintenance in many cases) So, the thinking is that new and shiney is the best way to go. A whole 'nother argument could be made from a sustainability-environmental viewpoint; current trends point to a future that is less wasteful if the future is to allow us sustainable living; let's not fool ourselves into thinking the replacement housing will be built for generations. It won't. By the time this as yet unbuilt housing is itself being demolished 30-40 years from now the Casino may be a distant memory shared only among the elderly. Few will care or even notice these as yet unbuilt housing units then being torn down. Such is modern architectural economics: the focus, like much of our current business model philosophy, is on the very short term. Hence the often repeated futuristic scenario that guarantees everyone their 15 minutes of fame-our cultural focus today is squarely on the here and now. It is a weak, shallow culture of instant gratification that dominates all aspects of modern life. So I contend that the old architecture is worth saving and there are abundant examples across the country that prove perserving and rehabilitating the old is appealing and economically worthwhile. One need not look any further than the OTR to see evidence of that. But money talks while everything else walks, so this is a done deal-developers, builders, and marketers, will divide up the quick profits and the nearby residents will be left to like or dislike what is built there to replace all of the old. I certainly hope the new development exceeds everyone's expectations and is quite profitable.

When they start building contemporary structures with the quality of 19th century structures, I'll totally agree. Today's stuff can't last for over 100 years.